The Clarion recently received a letter from Avrum Hirsh, a “parent and citizen,” who was more than concerned about an event last February when Korbel dean Christopher Hill hosted current Foreign Minister of Iran, Dr. Mohammed Javad Zarif. I disagree with Hirsh’s viewpoint. Iran is not the evil country that Hirsh depicts it as, nor is Zarif an entity of fascism. In reality, this event is a representation of positive engagement in the international community.
“A man spends 25 years supporting and representing a fascist, anti-American, oppressive, terrorist -supporting religious tyranny,” stated Hirsh, regarding Zarif. First, it is important to clear up who Zarif is. He is a DU alumnus, receiving his MA and PhD from the Graduate School of International Studies (now the Josef Korbel School) in 1984 and 1988, respectively. He was Iran’s representative to the United Nations from 2002-2007 and became Foreign Minister of Iran in August 2013 following the election of Hassan Rouhani as President of Iran.
Zarif’s work in Iran has been primarily positive. A CNN article shows that Zarif has so far spent more time with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry than any other foreign minister in the world. Zarif additionally published an article in Foreign Affairs last May stating the intentions of Rouhani’s foreign policy to help to clear up the policy fog of Ahmadinejad’s regime. To this end, Zarif could almost be considered a representative of pro-American sentiment in Iran in the sense that he is working to improve relations between the countries.
Hirsh also depicts Iran inaccurately. Systemically, Iran is a union of religion and democracy. It is a confusing country to understand, but nowhere near a “religious tyranny” and “thugocracy,” like Hirsh states in his letter. Even functionally, Iran’s current regime is not representative of Hirsh’s statements.
Indeed, it is likely Ahmadinejad’s words that Hirsh mistakenly attributes to the current regime when stating, “It is a vile regime calling for the death to America and openly dedicated to killing every woman, man and child Jew in the free democratic state of Israel.” Ahmadinejad was known for making questionable statements about the United States and the existence of Israel as a state, however, even he never vocalized an intention to kill every Israeli.
Rouhani’s regime is even less likely to represent such an initiative. The most radical critique he’s issued are claims about Netanyahu’s admittedly questionable political techniques. He respects the people of Israel and the Jewish religion. Zarif himself is known for tweeting, “Happy Rosh Hashanah!” out of respect and good will.
My first point is this: Iran is a widely misunderstood country in the United States. It certainly has many political policies that deserve critique and examination by the United States, but it is by no means the evil, polarized country that many people, including Hirsh, believe it to be. Zarif himself is also a positive proponent relations between Iran and United States, rightfully receiving praise from our university community.
There is another important point Hirsh raises that must be examined: that of the relationship between American values, higher education and international dialogue. Hirsh seems to believe in a moral high ground that the United States holds above other countries, which is at risk in American universities. This is quite the contrary. International dialogue is essential to a functioning international community.
This is especially true of countries who may be in political opposition to the United States. The current nuclear talks are representative of this: the United States and Iran, instead of unnecessarily increasing tensions that may lead to unfavorable circumstances for both, are working to find a common goal that is favorable to war.
American universities play an essential role to this, facilitating discussion where other political entities may not be as willing to step in. Furthermore, it encourages discussion within universities, where students can engage in current issues. It helps to create global—not just American—citizens. We can better relate to an increasingly globalized world, where international understanding is necessary. It is quite the opposite of “moral bankruptcy”; it is positive engagement and discussion.
To this degree, then, I strongly disagree with Hirsh’s statements, not only about Iran as a country, but also about DU’s role in this event. By hosting Zarif, we are representing positive engagement in the world.
